Rated Care Homes

Carrington House Limited

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 6 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 11 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 15 of 57

    rated care homes in Central Bedfordshire are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Carrington House Limited: inspection record

Care home, 60 beds, Central Bedfordshire

Rated Requires improvement in November 2025, down from Good.

Carrington House Limited: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Leighton Rose Care Home (Good, 0.8 miles away) and The Knolls Care Centre (Good, 1.1 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Marigold House Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Leighton Rose Care Home Good, 0.8 miles away
  3. RI
    Elm Lodge Nursing and Residential Home Requires improvement, 0.9 miles away
  4. RI
    Leighton Forest Requires improvement, 1 mile away
  5. G
    The Knolls Care Centre Good, 1.1 miles away

See all care homes in Central Bedfordshire

See all care homes in Leighton Buzzard

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 28 November 2025 (assessment visit 12 September 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 30 September to 14 October 2025.

Carrington House is a care home supporting people who may be living with dementia or a physical disability. The service provides accommodation for people who need personal care and nursing care. The service can support up to 60 people and 55 people were living at the service at the time of our inspection.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective Good
  • Caring No rating
  • Responsive No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

At our last inspection, this service was rated good. At this inspection we found breaches in regulations relating to dignity and respect and good governance. The service has changed from good to requires improvement at this inspection.

People were not always treated with dignity and respect at times of the day such as mealtimes. There was sometimes a lack of choice and a lack of meaningful engagement for people throughout the day. People were not always being supported to follow their individual pastimes and preferences, and not all people were being supported to speak about their experiences and feedback about the service. Staff sometimes supported people in relation to tasks that needed doing rather than in an individualised way which could lead to a more institutionalised culture at the service. There were some improvements needed in areas such as fire safety, safe administration of medicines and care plans. The registered manager took immediate action in these areas; however, existing audits and governance measures were not effective in identifying these.

People and relatives told us they/their family member were safe at the service. Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse. Issues relating to fire safety and medicines practice were resolved immediately when we bought them to the registered manager’s attention. People’s care plans and risk assessments were detailed and gave good guidance to staff for the most part. The service was clean, and staff followed good infection and prevention control (IPC) practice. People’s needs were assessed when they started using the service. Staff supported people to live healthily, and people had good outcomes with their support in relation to pressure area care and eating and drinking. People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring and we observed people to be happy whilst they were supported. Staff knew people as individuals and efforts were made to support people with varied social past times and experiences although this was inconsistent. The registered manager and management team were passionate about the service and wanted what was best for people. They took the findings from our inspection seriously and made some immediate improvements to the service based on our feedback. Some audits and governance measures at the service were effective in identifying and driving improvements.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

    The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect. Staff did not always treat people in a kind and dignified manner. Some staff practice resulted in people receiving less dignified experiences at times like mealtimes and people went for long periods of time without meaningful interaction from the staff team.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance. The provider had not always ensured their systems were effective or ensured oversight of quality, safety, and management of risks.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 28 November 2025. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 28 November 2025. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  3. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 28 November 2025. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.
  4. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 28 November 2025. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered manager
Alexandra Brennan
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

11 inspection reports, latest 9 June 2021. Latest assessment published 28 November 2025; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
06868883 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Central Bedfordshire Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Carrington House Limited provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Carrington House Limited as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Carrington House Limited have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 60 beds at Carrington House Limited.
When was Carrington House Limited last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Carrington House Limited was published on 28 November 2025.
Who runs Carrington House Limited?
Carrington House Limited is run by Carrington House Ltd.
What is Carrington House Limited's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 28 November 2025.

Contact

Phone
01525 853211
Address
Carrington House, 143 Vandyke Road, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3HQ Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Leighton Rose Care Home (Good, 0.8 miles away) and The Knolls Care Centre (Good, 1.1 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Marigold House Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Leighton Rose Care Home Good, 0.8 miles away
  3. RI
    Elm Lodge Nursing and Residential Home Requires improvement, 0.9 miles away
  4. RI
    Leighton Forest Requires improvement, 1 mile away
  5. G
    The Knolls Care Centre Good, 1.1 miles away

See all care homes in Central Bedfordshire

See all care homes in Leighton Buzzard